Siteadmin, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
125,790
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 4:
Line 4: − + − + − + − −
no edit summary
Today it can mean any argument or discussion. As an adjective, its use in ''moot point'' means a point of argument that has yet to be agreed on, whether in a legal context or not.
Today it can mean any argument or discussion. As an adjective, its use in ''moot point'' means a point of argument that has yet to be agreed on, whether in a legal context or not.
== Statutory repeal ==
<blockquote>Following these decisions, nearly "all [other] circuits to address the issue" have interpreted City of Mesquite "to support the rule that repeal of a contested ordinance moots a plaintiff's injunction request, absent evidence that the City plans to or already has reenacted the challenged law or one substantially similar." McCorvey v. Hill, 385 F.3d 846, 849 (5th Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Libertarian Party of Ark. v. Martin, 876 F.3d 948, 951 (8th Cir. 2017) (noting statutory change is usually enough to moot a challenge to the statute even though legislature maintains power to reenact); Coral Springs St. Sys., Inc. v. City of Sunrise, 371 F.3d 1320, 1329-33 (11th Cir. 2004) (noting repeal generally moots a challenge to a statute unless legislature reasonably likely to reenact); Fed'n of Adver. Indus. Representatives, Inc. v. City of Chicago, 326 F.3d 924, 930 (7th Cir. 2003) (noting "[r]ather than presuming bad faith" on the part of the government, court considers complete repeal to render a case moot unless reasonable expectation of reenactment).</blockquote>
''Bd. of Trs. of the Glazing Health & Welfare Tr. v. Chambers'', 941 F.3d 1195, 1198-99 (9th Cir. 2019).
[[Category:Legal Terms]]
[[Category:Legal Terms]]
[[Category:Dictionary]]
[[Category:Dictionary]]